SEAMEN'S DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 134, 8 June 1935, Page 10

SEAMEN'S DISPUTE

CLAIM AGAINST UNION

SUPEEME COUET CASE

QUESTION ABOUT TACTICS

Further evidence in the case in which Douglas Gibson, an ex-member of the Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand, is seeking an injunction restraining the Wellington Seamen's Union from excluding him from membership, and claiming the sum of £100, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). The examination of Fintan Patrick Walsh, president of the Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand, and president of the Wellington Seamen's Union, was commenced, but had not concluded when the Court adjourned until Monday. Thomas Frederick Anderson, seer* tary of the Auckland Seamen's Union, described what had happened in Auckland, and at the joint conference between the Seamen's and Cooks' and Stewards' Unions. .-■■ •. Mr. L. K. Wilson (for the plaintiff): Did you not advocate at the joint conference "oil in the bilges instead of the engines"?— No. ; Did you not tell them that the irri-. tation tactics were new and scientific and had not been adopted on the New Zealand coast before?—l said they had not been adopted in New Zealand before. Did you not tell them that the I.W.W. had succeeded with the same tactics?— No. Was it never mentioned at the'executive council that the I.W.W. Had succeeded with the same tactics? —No, I don't think so. Was it mentioned that "they were scientific tactics?— Yes, it probably was. IRRITATION TACTICS. The Chief Justice: Mr. Anderson, did you say at the meeting on July 26, in Auckland, that a general line of procedure for the irritation tactics had been drawn up?— Yes. ■•■■■■ His Honour: I want you io produce it.—lt was never put down in writing, your Honour. Why was it not' put in writing?—* Because, your Honour, it was impossible to put it in writing.. Anything might be done; the only limitation we had was that contracts should not be broken or the law infringed." Within that condition we were not limited to specific action. Was the object of the joint .conference to adopt tactics which must compel the shipowners either to restore the cuts or to lock the men out?— That is a very strong way of putting '% your Honour, but in essence it is the truth. His Honour: Then I suppose you will not dispute that in essence these irritation tactics were what is known abroad as I.W.W. tactics?— Your Honour, the I.W.W. are not limited at all. I know, but supposing you answer my question?— Yes, I think it would be so, but we had no mention «f adopti. g the lurid form of I.W.W. It is commonly said that any action that is never straight is I.W.W. PRESIDENT'S EVIDENCE. In evidence Fintan Patrick Walsh, president of the union, said the question of strike action.was discussed at a meeting of the executive council on July 18., Witness wanted, .to satisfy himself on the attitude: the councillors would take after the agreement had been arrived at with the cooks and stewards, so he asked each, councillor to give him his assurance that he would .support the joint council's policy. The assurance was given after a motion had been unanimously carried against strike action. From July 26 to July 30, continued witness, Gibson had attended the oifice on several occasions and discussed the Greymouth hold-up with; witness and Newfield. At all times Gibson led them to believe that he ■ was opposed to the action of the Greymouth men. At no time did he reveal that he was in communication with the men in July. The proposals of the joint council were adopted by stop-work meetings at the four ports by 331 votes to 210. The vote was inoperative, however, because they did not get the necessary two-thirds majority.. As a result of those meetings witness notified Mr. Kennedy, of the Cooks' and Stewards' Union, that in view of the voting the seamen were unable to give effect to the agreed-upon joint policy. NEW LINE OF ACTION. The meetings after July 26 took a different form and the subsequent voting was on* the proposal for immediate strike action, said * witness. The official wires sent to the Greymouth men were all correct and were not misleading. When the Greymouth men refused the council's request to take the ships to sea, it was evident to the council that the members who had voted against the request could only have done so as a result of misleading information., , Investigations showed that some of the Greymouth men had been receiving false information about the Wellington meetings from persons whom they refused to name. As a result of this information the council drew up a report which was submitted to the union at the four centres. The Auckland meeting revealed further information which, in his opinion and that of the council, implicated Fitzgerald and Gibson. The management committee submitted the question of Gibson's guilt as being a party to the hold-up at Greymouth to the councillors, and the council decided that his name should appear on the ballot paper for expulsion. At this stage the Court adjourned until Monday. • •